There has been no shortage of ridiculousness in the 2012 presidential campaign, but for the first time, it seems possible that each side may be paying a price for their over-the-top ads.

The Romney campaign’s new welfare ad and a Democratic super PAC ad featuring a man who essentially blames Mitt Romney and Bain Capital for his wife’s death have broken new ground (or crossed the line) in an ad war that is constantly ratcheting up.

And in both cases, there is anecdotal evidence that they could be doing more harm than good.

Priorities USA Action’s ad, featuring laid-off GST Steel worker Joe Soptic, has proven so toxic and controversial that the White House and Obama campaign have distanced themselves from it.

In addition, Time’s Mark Halperin wrote a missive on the magazine’s website Wednesday stating that the ad was clearly out of bounds.

“Responsible journalists will continue to do their best in the Freak Show environment to truth squad every ad, video and communication,” Halperin wrote. “But when lines of decency are crossed, more strenuous efforts are required.”

Priorities USA founder Bill Burton defended the ad Wednesday night on CNN, saying that it didn’t imply that Romney was responsible for the woman’s death (turns out she died of cancer five years after Soptic was laid off, and GST didn’t provide her primary insurance). But that’s pretty clearly the implication of the ad and it’s intended message, even if it’s not stated outright.

“The point of this ad is that — you know, it’s to tell the story of one guy, Joe Soptic, and the impact on his life that happened for years, and to this day, as a result of decisions that Mitt Romney made,” Burton said in response to a grilling from CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.

During an appearance on “Anderson Cooper 360” Wednesday night, Gingrich acknowledged that there was “no proof” for the accusation that Obama would “gut” the welfare-to-work program and suggested he would have used different language in the ad.

“We have no proof today, but I would say to you, under Obama’s ideology, it is absolutely true that he would be sending a lot of people checks for doing nothing,” he said.

Ouch. You don’t often see surrogates so thoroughly undercut their campaign’s message.

We’ve argued recently on this blog that out-of-context ads tend to work, provided there is a modicum of believable justification and the media don’t call them out. It may not be right or just, but most keen observers recognize that fact.

But if the media are emboldened to grill campaign aides and surrogates on the ads they are putting on the air, and the attack becomes so utterly discredited, there is a point at which the ads can backfire.

We’re not sure if we’re there yet, but the onslaught of out-of-context and truth-bending ads by the campaigns seems to have put some in the media over the brink. And the ad game has changed, at least somewhat.

Adelson sues National Jewish Democratic Council: Billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelsonfiled a $60 million lawsuit against the National Jewish Democratic Council on Wednesday, claiming the group was guided by political motivations when it claimed he approved of prostitution at an overseas casino he owned. Adelson denies that he approved of prostitution at his Macau casinos.

The suit is notable because it comes just a week after the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, under threat of legal action, apologized to Adelson and retracted statements alleging much the same thing.

Adelson has donated $10 million to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future and many millions more to other Republicans, making him a top target of Democrats who have tried to undercut the influence of his money by sullying his reputation. But Adelson’s access to the best legal representation money can buy may make Democrats think twice before they take a swipe at him in the future.